Re: Final(?) Relative Externals format

Michael Brouwer wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> Relative form 2: Host-relative
>> /repos/svn/trunk/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/svntest
>>
>> This form is compliant with RFC 2396.
>
> How would you distinguish this from a path to a wc in the client?

Not immediately relevant, since externals only operate on URLs.
Some client extended syntax could be invented.
An --url option has been suggested.

>> Relative form 3: Repository-relative
>> ///../svn/trunk/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/svntest
>
> The use /// is equivalent to svk's usage of // (which the exception
> that in svk you can't specify //../other_repo/

From what I understand of svk, my proposal is wholly unlike it.

> Also if I wanted to get to the tags/tag1 would it be:
> ////tags/tag1 or just ///tags/tag1?

///tags/tag1 - Start at the repository root (///) and look for "tags".
Just like my previous example was: start at the repos root (///) and look
for "..".

> Something else to keep in mind is that Repository-relative urls are
> probably going to be used much more often (at least on the command
> line) than Scheme-relative repositories, so it might be worth using //
> for Repository-relative and /// for Scheme-relative.

The URI standard already assigns a specific meaning to //.

> This would make // do the same thing in svk and svn.

I was under the impression that svk's // referred to a *specific* default
repository, not whichever repository you happen to be in a working copy of?

>> Relative form 4: Directory-relative
>> ../../svn/trunk/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/svntest
>
> How would you distinguish this from a path to a wc in the client?

Ditto response for form 2.

Max.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jan 25 03:18:14 2005